LIBRARY 
OF  THE 

ersity  OF  iluhoi. 

HO  JUL19T3 


ADVANCE  COPY - SUBJECT  TO  REVISION 

NOTE. — This  Paper  is  not  to  be  published  before  its  presentation  t'o  the  Society,  but 
is  to  be  regarded  confidential  until  that  date. 

It  is  sent  out  in  advance  in  order  to  give  opportunity  to  those  interested  in  the  sub- 
iect  to  prepare  written  or  oral  discussion  for  the  Society  meeting  as  noted  below. 

THE  PUBLICATION  COMMITTEE 


WESTERN  SOCIETY  OF  ENGINEERS 

17th  Floor,  Monadnock  Block,  Chicago 


The  Society,  as  a  body,  is  not  responsible  for  the  statements  and  opinions  advocated  in  its  publications. 


THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

COLLECTION 

SAMUEL  A.  GREELEY. 

To  be  presented  September  16,  1912. 

From  the  organic  life  of  a  community  there  is  produced  liquid 
waste  and  solid  waste.  The  solid  waste  is  commonly  called  refuse. 
In  it  are  included  garbage,  ashes,  rubbish,  street  sweepings,  manure, 
building  refuse,  trade  refuse,  etc.  Ordinarily  the  term  refuse  is 
confined  to  what  is  more  properly  house  refuse,  that  is,  garbage, 
ashes  and  rubbish  produced  from  houses,  restaurants,  hotels,  office 
buildings,  boarding  houses,  churches,  schools,  and  some  small  in¬ 
dustrial  establishments.  This  paper  will  deal  chiefly  with  the  col¬ 
lection  of  house  refuse,  as  distinguished  from  trade  refuse,  building 
refuse,  stable  refuse,  and  street  refuse. 

The  general  subject  of  refuse  removal  involves  (1)  the  house 
treatment,  (2)  the  collection,  and  (3)  the  disposal  of  the  refuse. 
Thus,  the  collection  holds  an  intermediate  position  and  is  subject 
to  the  methods  of  house  treatment  and  disposal.  On  account  of  this 
position,  it  has  an  immediate  effect  on  both  the  other  parts  of  the 
work. 

Of  the  three  divisions  of  refuse-disposal  work,  the  collection  is 
the  most  important,  for  the  following  reasons : 

(1)  It  is  the  most  costly.  Table  I  shows  the  cost  of  collec¬ 
tion  and  disposal,  chiefly  for  garbage,  in  a  number  of  American 
cities.  From  this  table  it  is  evident  that  the  cost  of  collection  varies 
from  two  to  eight  times  the  cost  of  disposal.  The  house  treatment 
involves  no  common  cost  to  the  community,  but  against  all  house¬ 
holders  comes  the  cost  of  the  house  can  and  its  up-keep. 

(2)  More  numerous  complaints  arise  from  the  failure  of  the 
collection  service  than  from  the  house  treatment  or  the  disposal  of 
refuse.  At  Milwaukee,  during  my  two  years’  experience  as  Super¬ 
intendent  of  Refuse  Disposal,  it  is  significant  that  only  three  com¬ 
plaints  were  received  against  the  disposal  system,  whereas  the  com¬ 
plaints  against  the  collection  service  ranged  from  five  to  fifty  per 
day,  being  more  in  summer  and  less  in  winter. 

(3)  The  collection  service  affects  more  people  more  directly 
than  does  the  disposal  part  of  the  work.  An  unsanitary  point  of 


1 


u 

•  ctf 

>»  c 


o 

JZ 


< 


03 

03 

u 

O 

<u 

u 

rtf 


E  • 

O  p  • 

O  £ 
O  O 

krH  Ol 

<5  « 
& 


C/3 

t_ 

03 


03 

rM  ctf 

H  o  § 
a>  c 

po< 


E 

O 

03 

’So 

E 

c/5 


fcrH 


c n 


hr  •  •  h 

t:  rt 
. — 

a  o  o< 

a  a  c,^ 

<u  03 


C/3 


PPtfO 

btf  *rt  Uh 


►>  E  E  _* 
E  E  O 


w 

J 

pp 

< 

H 


P 

< 

C/3 

O 

Oh 

C/3 


O 


£ 

O 


§  < 
<  & 

*  w 
I  s 

b  fe 

w 

P 

p 

o 

u 

w 

C/3 

p 
P 

w 

V! 


C/3 

O 

u 


ctf 

C/D  T-l 

o  ■'* 


E  1/5  £/3- 

h« 

it 

03 

a 


C/3  E 

O  O 
U  ‘P3  ^ 
w  u  °o 

tH 

a 

o 

U 


<u 

co 

E 

C+H 

a; 

PP 

a 

x 


ctf 

’  u 

03 

4-» 

Ctf 


S  .g 


u 

ctf 

<u 

PH 


03 

rt 

E 

c/5 

w 


Tfi  01  ro 

in  o 

o'  o  o' 


N  M 

w%t> 
Otf  O  c- 

©  rP  o' 


«  ■* 

i  (M  rf 
>  CD  O 

'  O  ©' 


■^OHODNfnXift^jO 

of^Tfi-3T^cc^'Ooc'oCD 

T-icviT-5c^rocvjr-J(-v-iT_5T}C 


CO 

03 


CO 


<u  <u 

CO  CO  qj 

t- •  ^  'a 

i+i  >+-i  D  D  d  D  qj  JC 

a/aj^bchCbfibCbo  co 

vjv;^  ctf  ctf  ^  ctf  ctf  —  •= 

EC  -  2  a 

p  i—  i~»  *"■ 

03  W_,c2.c2  rtf  ctf  ctf  ctf-; 

x X^OOOCP  .& 


a 

<u 


ctf 


O 

Erl  O 

CD  CD 


u 

ctf 

o 


t-H  tH  O  O  N 

t-H  y—\  r— •  <0 

Ci  o  C  Cl  o 


c/5 

w 


CM 

rf 

CM* 


43  -E 

ui  2 

Ctf  ctf 
tt>  >> 

*8 


o 


CO 

O 

43 


u 


-X 

V-« 

o 

£ 

<u 


bo 


o 

m 


E 

>>g 

E  E 

5«  rE.-S 


o 

0"g  S.S 

^  p  I 

rtf  4/  —  > 
o  >  E  > 
03  •“  ' 


Ea 

S': 

vC 

O  Er=—  o 


co 

o 

a 

Ctf  o 

03  E5 

Ct 


o 

u- 


03 


-  OE 

■P:  c 

CO  l_ 

[tJ  q  , 


—  oj 


CO 

03 

+-> 

O 


<PP  WJ3cUUU^ 


2 


Cost  of  garbage  disposal  only. 

Cost  after  deducting  profit  from  rubbish  sorting  plant. 


(rr  ^ \r 

\ 

disposal  is  generally  in  an  isolated  place  where  it  affects  but  few 
dwellings  and  comparatively  few  people.  On  the  other  hand,  fail¬ 
ure  to  provide  frequent  collection  service  affects  directly  the  people 
who  should  receive  the  service  and  their  neighbors  as  well.  Failure 
to  make  collections  makes  necessary  the  accumulation  of  decom¬ 
posable  refuse  in  the  back  yard,  which  may  create  a  nuisance  for 
people  living  in  the  same  block. 

For  these  reasons,  it  is  unfortunate  that  the  collection  of  refuse 
has  not  received  greater  attention  from  officials  connected  with  the 
work.  During  the  past  ten  years  a  great  deal  of  careful  study  has 
been  given  to  the  disposal  of  refuse,  but  comparatively  little  has 

•  been  given  to  the  collection. 

We  find  in  use  in  different  cities  of  this  country  and  Europe 
a  great  variety  of  methods  and  equipments  for  refuse  collection. 
It  is  significant  that  in  Europe,  where,  on  the  whole,  better  collection 
service  is  given,  more  uniform  methods  are  used  in  the  different 
cities.  Almost  everywhere  large  wagons  made  of  steel  with  fixed 
covers  and  holding  four  to  five  cubic  yards,  are  in  use.  The  col¬ 
lections  are  made,  generally,  at  least  three  times  a  week,  the  gar¬ 
bage,  ashes  and  rubbish  being  collected  together  in  one  wagon. 
They  are  commonly  made  at  night,  and  the  householder  sets  the 
can  out  on  the  curb  in  front  of  the  house  in  the  early  evening.  It 
is  a  common  practice  there  to  wash  the  wagons  daily. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  American  cities,  we  find  a  greater  variety. 
Wagons  varying  in  size,  holding  from  one  and  one-half  to  six 
cubic  yards,  are  used  in  different  cities.  These  wagons  are  some¬ 
times  covered  and  sometimes  not.  The  frequency  of  collection 
varies  from  three  times  a  week  to  as  much  as  once  in  eight  days. 
It  is  generally  necessary  for  the  collectors  to  go  into  the  back  yard 
-_fpr  the  cans,  and  the  collections  are  usually  made  in  the  daytime. 

Various  methods  are  employed  for  keeping  the  wagons  clean. 
This  feature  is  more  important  in  this  country  than  abroad,  because 
it  is  a  common  practice  in  this  country  to  collect  the  garbage,  ashes, 
and  rubbish  separately  in  different  wagons.  It  is  a  very  difficult 
matter  to  keep  wagons  clean  in  which  raw  garbage  is  collected. 

These  considerations  show  the  importance  of  making  a  careful 
analysis  of  the  collection  work. 

GENERAL  CONDITIONS  AFFECTING  COLLECTION  WORK. 

Before  proceeding  in  detail  with  the  elements  which  particularly 
C  relate  to  the  collection  service,  it  is  necessary  to  consider  certain 
general  features  of  the  refuse  problem  which  affect  the  collection 
in  an  indirect  way.  These  features  may  be  listed  as  follows : 

(1)  The  quantity  of  refuse  to  be  removed. 

(2)  The  quality  of  refuse  to  be  removed. 

(3)  The  local  climate. 

•  (4)  The  local  topography. 

(5)  The  method  of  disposal. 


3 


(1)  The  quantity  of  refuse  produced  depends  upon  the  habits 
of  the  people  making  up  the  community,  and  upon  the  season  of  the 
year.  In  winter  more  ashes  and  less  garbage  are  produced  than  in 
summer.  In  poor-class  districts  there  is  apt  to  be  more  rubbish  and 
less  garbage  than  in  rich-class  districts.  The  quantity  produced 
at  each  house  at  which  a  collector  stops  affects  the  proper  ordering 
of  his  work.  It  is  uneconomical  for  a  collector  to  make  the  trip 
from  the  back  yard  to  his  wagon  with  only  a  half  can  of  refuse. 
Therefore,  the  interval  between  collections  should  be  so  planned 
that  at  each  visit  the  collector  will  remove  one  can  full  of  refuse. 
It  is  equally  uneconomical  if  the  collector  finds  it  necessary  to  empty 
two  or  three  cans,  because  he  could  make  more  frequent  collections 
giving  better  service  with  the  same  effort  and  time  spent  at  the 
house.  On  the  whole,  communities  wasting  more  refuse  will  have  a 
greater  cost  for  collection  than  other  communities.  Abroad,  it  is 
estimated  that  0.04  cubic  feet  of  refuse  are  produced  per  capita  per 
day;  for  American  cities  the  amount  is  about  0.10,  or  two  and  one- 
half  times  as  much.  Therefore,  the  collection  department  in  Ameri¬ 
can  cities  must  remove  over  twice  as  much  refuse  as  must  be  re¬ 
moved  in  European  cities. 

(2)  The  quality  of  refuse  is  determined  by  the  degree  of 
separation  practiced  at  the  house.  As  already  stated,  in  European 
cities  the  various  components  of  house  refuse  are  put  into  one  can 
at  the  house.  The  result  is  a  rather  dry  material  in  which  the  gar¬ 
bage  is  largely  obscured  by  the  ashes  and  rubbish.  In  America,  as 
communities  grew,  garbage  was  the  first  waste  material  to  receive 
attention.  It  decomposed  and  made  a  nuisance  more  rapidly  than 
ashes  or  rubbish  and,  for  financial  reasons,  it  was  found  inadvisable 
to  collect  and  remove  the  comparatively  unobjectionable  ashes  and 
rubbish.  Later  on,  as  small  cities  grew  into  large  ones,  it  was  found 
necessary  to  remove  the  ashes  and  rubbish.  However,  because  in 
most  American  cities  large  areas  of  vacant  land  are  generally  easily 
accessible,  and  because,  on  account  of  the  great  individual  wasteful¬ 
ness  of  the  people,  a  large  commercial  value  is  found  in  garbage, 
the  separate  removal  of  these  materials  has  been  continued.  This 
necessitates  different  kinds  of  wagons  for  the  different  kinds  of 
refuse,  and  complicates  the  problem  to  that  extent.  In  New  York, 
Buffalo,  Boston,  and  Cleveland,  three  different  kinds  of  wagons  are 
used  for  the  collection  of  these  materials. 

(3)  The  local  climate  affects  the  collection  service  in  numer¬ 
ous  ways.  In  cold  climates,  during  winter  seasons,  garbage  does 
not  decompose  rapidly  and  accumulates  in  smaller  quantities,  so 
that  the  interval  between  collections  can  be  increased.  In  southern 
cities,  where  it  is  hot  for  most  of  the  year,  the  burden  of  more  fre¬ 
quent  collections  is  necessary.  To  some  extent  the  climate  affects 
the  type  of  wagon  which  may  be  used.  Where  heavy  snows  are 


4 


frequent,  hauling  becomes  difficult,  and  large  wagons  cannot  be  used 
for  continuous  service. 

(4)  The  extent  of  hills  and  steep  grades  in  cities  affects  the 
collection  of  refuse  much  as  it  affects  any  teaming  work.  However, 
it  is  often  possible,  by  proper  routing,  to  have  the  wagons  make 
their  trip  up  hill  when  empty,  carrying  the  full  load  down  the  hill. 
From  this  point  of  view,  collection  work  may  be  easier  in  a  hilly 
city  than  in  a  flat  one.  The  flat  city  through  which  there  are  water 
courses  presents  another  difficulty.  Frequently  the  bridges  over  the 
waterway  are  raised  above  the  street  grade,  and  the  load  which 
might  be  carried  over  the  greater  part  of  the  way  is  reduced  by  the 
grade  necessary  in  the  bridge  approaches. 

The  character  of  the  local  pavements  also  affects  the  economy 
of  the  collection.  Teamsters  prefer  brick  or  good  wood  block  to 
asphalt.  Poorly  paved  or  unpaved  alleys  add  to  the  burden  of  the 
work. 

Table  II  shows  the  weights  of  refuse  which  can  be  hauled  up 
different  grades  over  good  pavements : 


TABLE  II. 


(Data  from  I.  B.  Potter.) 

Grade 

Feet  per  100 

0  . 

1.0  . 

2.0  . 

2.4  . 

3.3  . 

4.0  . 

5.0  . 


Net  load, 
one  horse 
.  .  4,000 
..  3,600 
. .  3,240 
.  .  2,880 
.  .  2,540 
.  .  2,000 
. .  1,600 


(5)  The  local  conditions  frequently  determine  the  method  of 
disposal  of  the  refuse.  In  small  cities  of  less  than  100,000  people, 
it  is  not  generally  economical  to  dispose  of  garbage  by  reduction, 
and  local  conditions  will  determine  whether  it  is  to  be  buried  in  the 
soil,  delivered  to  farmers  as  feed  for  pigs,  or  burned.  If  it  is  used 
for  feed,  it  must  be  collected  very  frequently  to  insure  its  fresh¬ 
ness,  and  must  be  kept  entirely  free  from  rubbish  and  ashes.  If  it 
is  burned,  it  should  preferably  be  mixed  with  ashes  and  rubbish,  and 
in  any  event  should  be  kept  as  dry  as  possible. 

In  the  larger  cities  of  this  country,  a  reduction  method  of  dis¬ 
posal  for  garbage  has  been  found  advantageous.  This  requires  a 
separate  collection  of  the  garbage.  Ashes  may  always,  with  proper 
care,  be  removed  to  dumps.  In  some  cities,  notably  Buffalo,  it  has 
been  found  profitable  to  sort  out  the  salable  portions  of  the  rubbish. 
This  makes  it  necessary  to  collect  the  rubbish  separately  from  the 
other  materials.  Therefore,  the  method  of  disposal  may,  in  a  gen¬ 
eral  way,  force  certain  methods  of  collection. 


SPECIAL  FACTORS  IN  TIIE  COLLECTION  SERVICE. 

Coming  now  to  a  more  detailed  analysis  of  the  collection  serv- 


ice,  there  are  a  number  of  features  which  influence  this  work.  These 
may  be  listed  as  follows : 

(1)  The  frequency  of  collection. 

(2)  The  time  required  to  collect  from  each  house. 

(3)  The  working  time  of  the  collector. 

(4)  The  length  of  haul. 

(5)  The  quantity  of  refuse. 

(1)  As  already  indicated,  the  frequency  of  collection  is  one 
factor  which  determines  the  amount  of  refuse  to  be  collected  at  each 
house.  The  interval  between  collections  should  be  determined, — 
first,  to  prevent  nuisance ;  second,  to  satisfy  the  householder,  and, 
third,  to  give  opportunity  for  at  least  one  full  can  of  refuse  to  ac¬ 
cumulate.  These  factors  have  different  effects  at  different  seasons 
of  the  year.  In  winter  ashes  accumulate  more  rapidly  and  require 
more  frequent  removal  than  in  summer.  Garbage,  on  the  other 
hand,  does  not  accumulate  and  does  not  decompose  so  rapidly,  for 
both  of  which  reasons  the  interval  between  collections  may  be  in¬ 
creased.  In  the  summer  it  is  my  observation  that  garbage  should 
be  collected  at  intervals  of  two  days.  Ashes  should  be  collected  at 
least  twice  monthly,  even  in  summer.  In  Milwaukee,  during  the  sum¬ 
mer  of  1911,  an  attempt  was  made  to  collect  no  ashes  from  residences 
from  June  15th  to  September  15th.  It  was  found  necessary,  how¬ 
ever,  to  make  a  collection  during  July  because  of  the  very  many 
complaints  received.  The  accumulation  of  rubbish  is  fairly  constant 
throughout  the  year,  being  somewhat  greater  in  the  springtime 
during  the  cleaning  up  and  moving  season. 

Industrial  or  steam  ashes  should  be  collected  at  the  expense 
of  the  producer.  In  Milwaukee  such  ashes  were  removed  by  city 
teams  at  a  cost  of  $1.50  per  load,  paid  by  the  producer.  The  in¬ 
terval  between  collections  should  be  from  about  seven  to  three  days, 
depending  upon  the  storing  and  handling  facilities  at  the  premises. 

Mixed  refuse  does  not  decompose  as  rapidly  as  garbage  but 
accumulates  more  rapidly.  In  European  cities  mixed  refuse  is  col¬ 
lected  from  six  to  three  times  a  week. 

Table  III  gives  the  frequency  of  collection  practiced  in  several 
cities  here  and  abroad. 

TABLE  III. 

i  \ 

Frequency  of  Collection. 

“Paris  and  Cologne,  mixed  refuse  collected  daily;  Bremen,  Hamburg, 
Essen  and  Frankfort,  mixed  refuse  collected  three  times  a  week;  Rochester, 
garbage  collected  daily  (except  Sundays)  in  the  central  portion  of  the  city, 
from  May  15th  to  October  15th,  and  three  times  a  week  in  the  remaining 
part  of  the  city.  From  October  15th  to  May  15th,  twice  a  week  in  the  first 
section  of  the  city,  and  once  a  week  in  the  remainder  of  the  city.  Ashes 
and  rubbish  are  collected  together  weekly  through  the  fall,  winter  and  spring, 
and  semi-weekly  in  summer;  Columbus,  garbage  collected  weekly  from  No¬ 
vember  to  May,  and  twice  a  week  from  May  to  November.  Garbage  and  rub¬ 
bish  are  collected  daily  from  hotels  and  restaurants.  Ashes  and  rubbish  are 
collected  once  every  ten  days;  Milwaukee,  garbage  collection  varies  from 


■t 


daily  for  hotels  and  restaurants  to  weekly  for  residences  throughout  the 
year.  Ashes  and  rubbish  are  collected  about  twice  a  month ;  Minneapolis, 
garbage,  ashes  and  rubbish  are  collected  weekly,  except  from  hotels  and 
restaurants,  where  the  collection  is  more  frequent.  The  garbage  is  all 
wrapped  in  paper  to  prevent  its  decomposition ;  Buffalo,  garbage,  ashes  and 
rubbish  are  collected  daily  all  the  year  from  the  business  section  of  the 
town.  For  the  remainder  of  the  town,  they  are  collected  twice  a  week  from 
May  to  November,  and  once  a  week  from  November  to  May;  Philadelphia, 
garbage  is  removed  six  times  a  week  from  all  buildings;  Denver,  garbage 
collected  once  a  week  in  winter,  and  three  times  a  week  in  summer.” 

(2)  The  time  required  to  collect  from  each  house  has  a  most 
important  bearing  upon  the  economy  of  the  collection  service.  In 
Milwaukee,  during  the  spring  of  1911,  a  very  complete  record  was 
kept  of  the  work  done  by  the  collectors.  Observations  were  made  of 
twenty-one  collectors  and  data  secured  showing  the  length  of  time 
spent  by  the  collector  in  harnessing  his  horse,  going  to  the  point  of 
collection,  collecting  from  the  required  number  of  places,  and 
carrying  the  full  load  to  the  point  of  disposal.  These  data  are  sum¬ 
marized  in  Table  IV.  The  records  are  given  for  each  wagon  mak¬ 
ing  one  trip.  The  wagons  made,  generally  two,  but  sometimes  three 
trips,  per  day.  The  districts  were  assigned  to  the  drivers  as  to 
length  of  haul  and  difficulty  of  collection,  so. that  two  loads  would 
approximate  an  8-hour  day. 

TABLE  IV. 


MILWAUKEE  DATA. 

Detailed  Analysis  of  Collectors’  Work. 

t - Time  in  Minutes  per  Trip - > 


Number 


of  blocks 

Number  of 

covered  on 

places 

Haul¬ 

one  trip. 

entered. 

Total. 

ing. 

3 

58 

305 

225 

5 

49 

227 

167 

2 

32 

249 

174 

2 

45 

108 

60 

3 

39 

220 

150 

4 

45 

216 

88 

4 

24 

225 

110 

8 

106 

233 

100 

4 

38 

316 

210 

2 

15 

170 

100 

6 

8 

121 

66 

4 

9 

80 

36 

1 

6 

124 

92 

3 

58 

175 

119 

4 

15 

200 

136 

6 

18 

180 

75 

5 

90 

300 

115 

3 

59 

244 

89 

1 

26 

266 

151 

5 

13 

205 

120 

6 

45 

150 

50 

6 

32 

250 

160 

Average 


Ave. 


Per  cent  of 

time 

total  time 

in  mts. 

Collect- 

spent  col- 

to  clean 

ing. 

lecting. 

one  place. 

80 

39% 

1.38 

60 

26% 

1.22 

75 

30% 

2.34 

48 

44% 

1.07 

70 

32% 

1.79 

128 

59% 

2.85 

115 

51% 

4.80 

133 

57% 

1.25 

106 

34% 

2.79 

70 

41% 

4.67 

55 

45% 

6.87 

44 

55% 

4.90 

32 

26% 

5.33 

56 

32% 

.97 

64 

32% 

12.80 

105 

58% 

5.85 

185 

62% 

2.06 

155 

64% 

2.63 

115 

43% 

4.43 

85 

41% 

6.54 

100 

6  7% 

2.22 

90 

36% 

2.81 

45% 

3.18  minutes 

7 


These  observations  were  made  in  April.  1911.  Districts  were 
chosen  in  difirerent  sections  of  the  city  to  cover  different  conditions 
f  service,  ranging  free  small  house  to  hotel  distr:  is  indie 

by  the  number  of  places  entered. 

The  most  striking  feature  of  the  table  relates  to  the  number  of 
places  which  one  collector  can  visit  in  one  day.  and  the  length  of 
time  required  at  each  house  or  stopping  place.  It  was  found  on 
the  average  that  one  collector  could  enter  from  fifty  to  one  hundred 
houses  in  an  eight-hour  day.  and  that  the  time  consumed  in  clean¬ 
ing  one  house  was  slightly  over  three  minutes.  Very  little  data  of 
this  nature  are  available.  However,  in  a  bock  entitled  “Cleansing." 
by  Arthur  May.  Cleansing  Superintendent  of  London,  it  is  stated, 
on  page  116.  that:  “It  has  been  generally  accepted  that,  with  a 
shoot  within  two  miles  of  the  dusting  district,  a  one-horse  van  with 
a  capacity  of  four  cubic  yards  would,  under  normal  conditions,  make 
from  640  to  65-1  calls  and  collections  each  day  of  ten  hours :  .  . 

In  districts  where  dust  bins  house  cans  are  placed  on  the  edge  of 
the  curb  .  .  .  it  is  quite  possible  to  make  as  many  as  500  col¬ 

lections  in  »one  day." 

Comparing  this  with  the  Milwaukee  -lata,  it  appears  that  the 
London  collector  is  able  to  enter  from  three  to  five  times  as  many 
houses  per  day  as  can  the  Milwaukee  collector.  Presumably,  there¬ 
fore.  the  work  in  London  can  be  done  by  from  one-half  to  one- 
third  as  many  men  per  unit  quantity  of  refuse.  Mr.  May  states 
further  in  his  book  that,  “a  large  city*  like  Manchester  has  over 
seven  million  weekly  emptyings  even.*  year ;  and  one  minute’s  de¬ 
lay  in  each  emptying  mounts  up  in  the  year  to  a  loss  of  116.666 
working  hours  for  horse  and  cart  and  one  or  two  men." 

This  quotation  gives  the  meat  of  the  situation.  It  is  the  loca¬ 
tion  of  the  can  which  chiefly  determines  the  speed  with  which  col¬ 
lectors  can  clean  each  house.  Where  the  can  is  placed  by  the 
householder  on  the  curb,  as  in  Hamburg.  Paris.  London,  and  other 
European  cities,  it  requires  but  a  few  seconds  for  the  collector  to 
empty  the  can  into  his  wagon.  The  careful  field  investigation  in 
Milwaukee  shows  that  it  requires  over  three  minutes  to  perform 
the  same  operation,  where  the  can  is  kept  in  the  back  yard  or  cellar. 

( 3  The  working  time  of  a  collector  may  be  divided  into  the 
productive  time,  or  the  time  actually  spent  in  collecting  and  empty¬ 
ing  the  house  cans  into  the  wagon,  and  the  unproductive  time,  or 
the  time  spent  driving  the  loaded  wagon  from  the  last  point  of  col¬ 
lection  to  the  point  of  disposal.  Evidently  the  unproductive  time 
should  be  kept  as  low  as  possible.  To  do  this,  the  wagon  should  be 
as  large  as  possible  in  order  that  the  least  number  of  trips  to  the 
point  of  disposal  should  be  made.  If  it  were  possible  to  handle  a 
wagon  so  large  that  the  time  required  to  load  it  would  leave  only 
sufficient  time  to  make  one  trip  to  the  point  of  disposal,  then  the 
most  economical  operation  of  the  wagons  would  result.  It  is  of  in- 


8 


terest  to  know,  in  this  connection,  that  the  city  of  New  York  is 
experimenting  with  a  nine-yard  wagon  for  hauling  garbage  and 
ashes.  The  present  garbage  wagons  hold  one  and  one-half  yards, 
and  the  ash  wagons  three  yards.  It  is,  therefore,  a  striking  de¬ 
parture  from  their  past  experience.  Mr.  Edward  D.  Very  speaks 
very  enthusiastically  of  the  expected  economies,  and  there  is  no 
doubt  that  he  is  proceeding  along  the  right  lines. 

In  the  Milwaukee  field  investigation,  as  set  forth  in  Table  IV, 
the  average  time  which  a  collector  making  two  trips  a  day  spent 
in  the  productive  work  of  collecting,  was  only  45%  of  the  working 
day.  It  is  well  worth  serious  effort  to  raise  the  productive  time 
above  this  figure. 

(4)  The  length  of  haul  has  a  similar  efifect  upon  the  collection 
service.  If  all  of  the  refuse  has  to  be  transported  to  one  point  of 
disposal,  the  length  of  haul  will  be  about  halved  if  two  points  of 
disposal  are  available.  Elements  of  this  sort  frequently  determine 
the  most  suitable  method  of  disposal,  and  show  the  vital  relation 
which  exists  between  the  collection  and  disposal  of  refuse.  For  ex¬ 
ample,  in  Milwaukee  the  most  available  site  for  a  reduction  plant 
was  at  Mequon,  about  seven  miles  north  of  the  city.  On  the  other 
hand,  a  very  central  location  was  available  for  an  incinerator,  with 
suitable  locations  for  other  plants  available  for  future  development. 
On  this  account,  the  cost  analysis  showed  the  incineration  of  mixed 
refuse  to  be  cheaper  than  the  reduction  of  garbage,  the  burning  of 
rubbish,  and  the  dumping  of  ashes,  the  balance  in  favor  of  the 
former  method  being  due  chiefly  to  the  shorter  length  of  haul. 

In  a  city  of  100,000  people,  producing  say  50  tons  of  garbage 
per  day,  a  change  in  the  length  of  haul  sufficient  to  increase  the 
cost  of  collection  by  20c  per  ton  is  equivalent  to  a  capital  sum  of  about 
$60,000.  This  sum  \\  ill  considerably  more  than  make  up  the  differ¬ 
ence  in  the  cost  of  building  two  smaller  disposal-stations  properly 
located,  instead  of  one  large  plant. 

The  length  of  haul  can  frequently  be  reduced  for  the  wagon 
service  by  having  loading-stations,  from  which  the  refuse  is  taken 
by  train,  boat,  motor,  or  trolley  to  the  point  of  final  disposal.  In 
Cleveland,  Columbus,  and  Minneapolis,  garbage  is  taken  from  a 
central  loading-station  on  freight  trains,  to  the  point  of  final  dis¬ 
posal,  several  miles  outside  of  the  city.  In  Philadelphia  and  Brook¬ 
lyn,  trolley  cars  are  used  for  this  service.  In  Chicago,  Frankfort, 
and  New  York,  transportation  by  water  is  used.  Recent  improve¬ 
ments  proposed  for  handling  refuse  in  Boston  include  the  installa¬ 
tion  of  large  motor-trucks  for  the  major  portion  of  the  haul.  The 
difficulty  of  keeping  centrally  located  loading-stations  clean  should 
be  emphasized.  They  serve  to  shorten  the  wagon  haul  and  there¬ 
fore  help  in  reducing  the  unproductive  time  of  the  collector. 

(5)  The  quantity  of  refuse  produced  by  the  people  varies 
in  different  communities,  and  in  different  parts  of  the  same  com- 


9 


munity.  If  small  quantities  of  refuse  are  produced  per  capita,  the 
collector,  on  a  given  frequency  of  collection,  will  find  a  smaller 
accumulation  in  the  house  can,  and  his  work  will  be  correspondingly 
handicapped.  If  large  quantities  are  produced  per  capita,  a  wagon 
of  given  size  will  not  serve  as  large  a  portion  of  the  population. 
This  feature  is  particularly  evident  when  comparisons  are  made 
between  refuse  collection  in  European  cities  and  American  cities. 
In  Europe  the  per  capita  production  of  garbage,  ashes,  and  rub¬ 
bish  together  amounts  to  about  0.04  cubic  feet  per  day.  The  figure 
for  American  cities  is  generally  above  0.10,  or  about  two  and  one- 
half  times  as  much  as  the  European  figure.  Evidently,  therefore, 
the  collection  service  abroad  should  be  rendered  more  economically 
than  in  this  country.  An  analysis  of  the  collection  service  under 
the  two  conditions  bears  out  this  conclusion.  It  has  been  found 
that  for  European  conditions  the  mixed  house-refuse  of  100,000 
people  can  be  removed  by  about  fifteen  wagons.  In  American  cities 
it  is  found  that  about  thirty  wagons  are  required.  Although  these 
figures  cannot  be  taken  in  too  literal  a  way,  they  serve  to  show  that 
the  quantity  of  refuse  produced  by  each  locality  must  be  considered 
in  an  analysis  of  the  collection  work. 

The  special  factors  in  the  collection  service  have  thus  been 
listed  and  discussed. 

The  relative  effect  of  these  special  factors  upon  the  collection 
service  can  best  be  seen  by  grouping  them  into  expressions.  This 
has  been  done  as  follows : 

FACTORS. 

W  =  number  of  collection  wagons. 

V  =  capacity  of  one  wagon  in  cubic  feet. 

F  =  interval  between  collections  in  days. 

T  —  time  required  to  collect  from  one  house  expressed  as  parts  of  an  hour. 
C  =  the  percentage  of  working  time  spent  by  the  collectors  in  the  actual 
time  of  collecting  as  distinguished  from  hauling  to  and  from  the 
point  of  disposal. 

D  =  length  of  working  day  in  hours. 

S  =  number  of  trips  to  point  of  disposal  per  wagon  per  day. 

P  =  total  population. 

N  =  average  number  of  people  per  house. 

R  =  the  daily  quantity  of  refuse  per  capita — cubic  feet, 
g  =  the  daily  quantity  of  garbage  per  capita — cubic  feet, 
d  =  daily  quantity  of  ashes  per  capita — cubic  feet, 

r  =  daily  quantity  of  rubbish  per  capita — cubic  feet. 

D  X  C  1 

Equation  I.  S  — - XFX  NXRX  — 

T  V 

P  X  R 

Equation  II.  W  = - 

sxv 

Equation  I  shows  the  number  of  trips  to  the  point  of  dis¬ 
posal  per  wagon  per  day  in  terms  of  the  productive  working  time, 
the  time  required  to  clean  one  house,  the  frequency  of  collection, 
the  per  capita  production  of  refuse,  and  the  capacity  of  each  wagon. 


10 


It  shows  that  the  number  of  trips  per  day  will  increase  with  the 
productive  working  time  and  the  per  capita  production  of  refuse ; 
but  will  decrease  as  the  time  required  to  clean  one  house  increases, 
and  the  size  of  the  wagons  becomes  larger.  Equation  II  shows 
the  total  number  of  wagons  required  in  terms  of  the  total  amount 
of  refuse  produced,  the  number  of  trips  per  wagon  per  day,  and 

APPLICATIONS 


1  City 

Population 

flctua  | 
numkxr 
of  wagons 
in  service 

|  Copocity 

of 

.  waaonfi 
ih  cubic  yds. 

I ntervo  l  .. 
bet-w  ten 
collections 

in  doyfi 

066urv?ed 

time 

Spent 

Collecting 

assumed 
time 
required 
per  bouse 

Number  of 
ti-ips  per 

wogon 

l°*r 

mkomr  of 
wo go»s  r 

100,000  pOpuloTlOro 

actuol  compote  <3 

V 

27 

F" 

O 

T 

3 

V 

/ 

■URO 

3EAN 

CITIE 

S-MI> 

:ed  c 

Ol-L.EC 

- 1 - 

z 

0 

h 

— 

HAMBURG 

1,000,000 

90 

5.0 

2 

0.75 

1 

90 

2.41 

9 

12 

FRANKFORT 

920,000 

(30 

2.5 

2.5 

065 

1 

60 

3.4? 

14 

1? 

AME 

RICA 

M  CIT 

1ES  — 

SEPAi 

RATE 

J 

0 

0 

LEGTI 

ON. 

gar  e 

age: 

MILWAUKEE 

37*000 

95 

1.5 

.8.0 

0.4-5 

1 

30 

£.14- 

£5 

£2> 

COLUMBUS 

181,000 

20 

8.5 

4.5 

O.G5 

l 

AO 

2.  .08 

11 

14 

ROCHESTER 

225,000 

30 

3.3 

3.0 

o:?o 

1 

<60 

,  106 

13 

13 

ASHE 

S  35- 

RUBB 

ISH 

• 

COLUMBUS 

181,000 

40 

3.5 

10.0 

0.50 

1 

so 

5.?Z 

22 

22 

ROCHESTER 

225,000 

50 

4.0 

GO 

0:60 

1  - 

25 

A.0,7 

22 

24 

ASSUMPTION 


D 

=  S  o  Hour's  . 

R 

=  o.  o-«- 

0 

T 

0 

■P««T 

■for 

Europea  r» 

Cities. 

2 

—  0.0  2 

1 

M 

M 

Amar-icon 

1 

a. 

H  0.0? 

0 

V 

u 

V 

* 

r 

O.Ofi 

1 

II 

1 

t 

n 

the  capacity  of  each  wagon.  The  number  of  wagons  required  will 
be  greater  for  greater  quantities  of  refuse,  and  will  be  less  for 
larger  wagons  making  the  same  number  of  trips  per  day  to  the 
point  of  disposal.  The  total  number  and  capacity  of  wagons  re¬ 
quired  is  a  good  index  of  the  cost  of  the  service,  for  it  also  de¬ 
termines  the  number  of  workmen  and  horses  employed.  These 
two  expressions  serve  to  bring  out  the  relative  importance  of  the 


various  factors  in  the  collection  service.  They  are  by  no  means 
set  forth  as  definite  formulae.  Their  use  is  wholly  analytical.  It 
is  frequently  easy  for  a  cleansing  superintendent  to  determine 
how  much  time  his  collectors  are  spending  unproductivelv  in  going 
to  and  from  the  dumps.  He  should,  also,  be  able  to  determine  quite  ac¬ 
curately  the  frequency  of  collection,  the  total  refuse,  the  capacity  of 
the  wagons  and  the  average  number  of  trips  made  per  wagon  per 
day.  With  these  data  in  hand  he  can  estimate  from  Equation  I 
the  time  required  to  collect  from  one  house.  If  this  is  excessive,  he 
may  find  it  advisable  to  secure  better  co-operation  betwen  the  col¬ 
lectors  and  the  householders.  In  Milwaukee  it  was  expected  to 
secure  this  co-operation  by  employing,  for  a  year  or  two,  one  or 
more  inspectors  whose  work  should  be  the  correlation  of  the  house 
treatment  and  collection  service.  The  application  of  these  two 
expressions  to  a  few  typical  cities  of  Europe  and  America  is  shown 
above. 

CHOICE  OF  EQUIPMENT. 

Based  on  the  foregoing  detailed  analysis  of  the  various  ele¬ 
ments  which  affect  the  efficiency  of  the  collection  service,  it  is  next 
proper  to  consider  the  choice  of  the  equipment  for  any  particular 
locality.  In  this  case,  also,  the  choice  of  the  wagon  is  the  chief 
question,  the  particular  elements  affecting  the  choice  of  wagon 
being  as  follows : 

( 1 )  Its  size. 

(2)  The  ease  of  loading  the  wagon. 

(3)  The  ease  of  cleaning  the  wagon. 

(4)  Its  manipulation. 

(5)  The  covering  of  the  wagon. 

(6)  The  dumping  of  the  wagon. 

(7)  The  method  of  transportation. 

( 1 )  Theoretically,  a  wagon  should  be  so  large  that  the  time 
required  to  fill  it  would  leave  sufficient  time  out  of  a  working  day 
for  only  one  trip  to  the  point  of  disposal.  In  this  way  the  unpro¬ 
ductive  time  in  traveling  to  and  from  the  dump  would  be  reduced 
to  a  minimum.  Examples  of  the  effect  of  this  feature  on  the 
economy  of  the  collection  service  have  been  given.  A  large  wagon 
requires  and  gets  a  more  intelligent  collector  than  a  small  wagon. 

(2)  The  work  required  to  load  the  wagon  has  a  considerable 
effect  on  the  final  cost  of  the  collection  service.  The  loading  height 
should  be  such  that  the  workmen  going  with  the  wagon  can  easily 
turn  the  contents  of  the  can  into  the  wagon.  If  only  one  man 
goes  with  the  wagon,  the  height  should  not  be  over  six  feet,  but 
should  preferably  be  nearer  five  feet.  If  a  stepping  board  placed 
at  the  rear  and  on  the  sides  between  the  wheels  is  used,  two  men 
can  load  a  somewhat  higher  wagon.  This  general  statement  does 
not  apply  with  such  force  for  rubbish  wagons.  Rubbish  is  a  lighter 
material  and  is  cleaner  to  handle,  so  that  the  collector  can  pile  it 


12 


to  a  considerable  height  in  his  wagon.  Rubbish  wagons  in  Buffalo 
and  New  York  are  loaded  to  a  height  of  more  than  8  ft. 
Figure  1  shows  a  new  type  of  wagon  designed  for  collecting  garb¬ 
age  in  Milwaukee.  The  wagon  is  set  very  low  to  facilitate  loading, 


Fig.  1.  New  Type  of  Garbage  Wagon — Milwaukee. 

and  at  the  same  time  the  capacity  of  the  wagon  is  kept  up  to  4 
cu.  yds.  Fig.  2  shows  a  new  type  of  wagon  recently  in¬ 
stalled  on  an  experimental  basis  in  New  York  City.  The  wagon 
has  a  loading  height  of  less  than  6  ft.  with  a  capacity  of  9  cu.  yds. 


Fig.  2.  New  Type  of  Garbage  Wagon — New  York. 

(3)  The  first  essential  for  efficiency  in  the  collection  service 
is  that  the  wagons  should  be  kept  clean.  This  is  particularly  true 
with  the  separate  collection  of  garbage.  It  is  the  common  practice 


13 


abroad,  where  mixed  refuse  is  collected,  to  wash  the  wagons  with 
a  hose  after  each  day’s  work.  In  Milwaukee  two  washings  a  week 
with  a  hose  and  broom  were  not  sufficient  to  prevent  the  wagons 


Fig.  3.  Garbage  Cart — Staten  Island,  N.  Y. 

from  creating  a  nuisance  in  hot  weather.  In  Buffalo  an  attempt 
was  made,  with  fair  success,  to  disinfect  the  wagons.  In  Chicago 
i)he  disinfection  of  the  wagons  has  not  been  effectively  carried 


Fig.  4.  German  Wagon — Fixed  Cover  and  Doors. 

out.  In  general  it  may  be  said  that  the  wagons  in  which  raw 
garbage  is  hauled,  should  be  washed  daily  in  summer. 

14 


The  odor  from  garbage  comes  from  its  decomposition,  and  it 
is  chiefly  the  leavings  in  the  wagon  which  make  the  trouble.  Hinged 
covers  are  objectionable  on  this  account,  a  fixed,  or  canvas,  cover 
being  kept  clean  more  easily. 

(4)  The  question  of  handling  the  wagon  over  rough  roads 
and  in  narrow  alleys  where  short  turns  are  required,  will  have 
some  effect  on  the  choice.  In  the  attempt  to  increase  the  capacity 
of  the  wagon,  a  long  wheel  base  is  desirable.  This,  however,  has 
a  tendency  to  make  the  wagon  clumsy.  In  many  places  it  will  be 
necessary  to  have  small  carts  for  work  in  alleys  and  other  inac¬ 
cessible  places. 

(5)  Wagons  require  covering  for  several  reasons,  depending 
upon  the  service.  Those  used  for  collecting  ashes  or  rubbish  and 


Fig.  5.  Chicago  Garbage  Wagon. 


sometimes  mixed  refuse,  should  be  covered  to  prevent  dust  and 
loose  paper  from  blowing  away  into  the  street.  This  is  a  frequent 
complaint.  I  know  of  one  city  in  Germany  where  the  Cleansing 
Superintendent  told  me  that  he  had  found  it  necessary  to  make  his 
collections  at  night,  because  of  the  dust  nuisance  from  emptying 
the  cans  into  the  wagon.  Garbage  wagons  should  be  covered  to 
prevent  nuisance  to  both  sight  and  smell.  Figure  3  shows  a  garbage 
cart  used  in  Staten  Island,  New  York,  covered  with  canvas  cloth. 
Figure  4  shows  a  wagon  in  use  in  Germany,  with  a  fixed  cover, 
fitted  with  doors.  Figure  5  shows  a  garbage  wagon  in  Chicago, 
with  loosely-hinged  covers.  Similar  wagons  are  used  in  Cleveland 
and  Milwaukee.  Figure  6  shows  a  100  cu.  ft.  garbage  wagon  in 
Minneapolis,  full  of  garbage  wrapped  in  paper  as  collected  from 


the  houses,  and  Figure  7  shows  the  wagon  with  the  canvas  cover 
in  place.  It  is  my  observation  that  wagon  covers  fitted  with  doors 
are  more  durable,  less  noisy,  and  more  easily  kept  clean  than  the 
others.  With  careful  supervision  and  operation,  the  canvas  cover 
has  the  advantage  of  cheapness  and  simplicity.  It  is,  however, 
susceptible  to  neglect. 

(6)  A  loaded  wagon  must  be  dumped  with  as  little  loss  of 
time  as  possible.  The  method  of  dumping  depends  partly  upon 
the  final  method  of  disposal.  Where  the  refuse  is  taken  to  dumps, 
bottom-dumping  wagons  are  the  most  serviceable.  Four  yard 
bottom-dumping  wagons  were  tried  in  Milwaukee  for  the  collec- 


Fig.  6.  Minneapolis  Wagon — Garbage  Wrapped  in  Paper. 

tion  of  garbage,  but  it  was  impossible  to  keep  them  water  tight, 
so  that  in  wet  weather  their  use  was  objectionable.  For  ashes  and 
rubbish  they  have  proven  very  satisfactory.  The  distance  from  the 
ground  to  the  bottom  of  the  wagon  is  limited  to  a  certain  fixed 
maximum,  sufficient  to  give  clearance  to  the  bottoms  when  open, 
and  this  reduces  the  available  capacity.  Many  wagons  used  in  the 
collection  service  are  set  on  hinges  from  the  rear  axle,  and  are 
dumped  by  raising  the  forward  end.  This  is  a  common  method 
abroad.  It  allows  a  large  wagon  which  can  be  dumped  anywhere 
with  reasonable  speed.  In  many  cases  in  this  country,  garbage 
wagons  are  built  with  removable  steel  bodies,  which  can  be  lifted 


1C 


from  the  truck  by  a  crane  and  placed  on  freight  cars  or  scows  for 
removal  to  the  disposal  works.  Sometimes  they  are  lifted  directly 
into  the  disposal  plant,  and,  after  dumping,  are  returned  to  the 
wagon  frame.  This  method,  depending  on  the  necessary  travel 
for  the  crane,  requires  considerable  time. 

In  Milwaukee,  where  this  method  was  used  at  the  incinerator, 
it  was  possible  to  unload  from  20  to  25  wagons  per  hour  per 
crane.  With  two  cranes  working,  the  capacity  of  the  plant  for 
unloading  wagons  is  about  40  wagons  per  hour.  This  is  just 
sufficient  to  keep  ahead  of  the  wagons  as  they  come  in.  Where 
many  wagons  come  to  one  point  of  disposal,  the  method  of  un- 


Fig:  7.  Minneapolis  Wagon  With  Canvas  Cover. 

loading  must  be  carefully  considered  in  order  not  to  keep  the 
drivers  waiting. 

(7)  Wagons  are  drawn  by  one,  two,  or  three  horses,  or  are 
propelled  by  a  motor.  Where  it  is  possible  to  have  large  wagons, 
two  horses  are  generally  satisfactory.  In  Paris  some  of  the  large 
wagons  are  'drawn  by  three  horses  and  the  new  wagons  recently 
installed  in  New  York  are  drawn  by  three  horses.  The  use  of  one- 
horse  carts  does  not  seem  advisable  except  in  special  districts. 

Recently  there  has  been  a  great  advance  in  the  construction 
of  motor-driven  vehicles.  Manufacturers  are  urging  their  use  for 
refuse  collection.  In  several  cities  they  have  been  given  trials. 


17 


An  electric  truck  is  used  in  Hamburg,  Germany,  which  has  a 
capacity  of  about  5  cu.  yds.  and  cost  $4,000.  The  cost  of  operation 
was  given  as  follows : 

Tires  . 4.2  cents  per  mile. 

Power  . 3.5  cents  per  mile. 

Misc . 1.0  cents  per  mile. 

Total  . 8.7  cents  per  mile. 

The  wagons  weigh  about  11,000  lb.  They  are  fitted  with 
two  electric  motors  of  4.5  h.p.  capacity.  They  make  four  trips 
each  night,  covering  about  35  miles  in  eight  hours.  Then  the  bat¬ 
teries  are  replaced  with  others  already  charged  at  the  city  in¬ 
cinerator. 

Motor  driven  wagons  have  been  used  in  Paris,  and  in  Seattle 
in  this  country,  for  hauling  rubbish.  The  necessarily  large  number 
of  starts  and  stops  required  for  this  service  puts  a  handicap  on 
most  motor-driven  vehicles.  On  the  other  hand,  the  fact  that 
larger  loads  can  be  handled  is  a  favorable  factor.  Frequently, 
where  roads  to  the  point  of  disposal  are  poor,  the  weight  and  un¬ 
wieldiness  of  the  motor  precludes  its  use.  At  the  present  time, 
its  chief  usefulness  would  seem  to  be  for  taking  the  load  from  a 
transfer  station  near  the  area  of  collection  to  an  isolated  point  of 
disposal. 

The  Superintendent  in  Hamburg  stated  that  these  wagons 
were  cheaper  than  two-horse  wagons  of  similar  size  only  when 
operated  two  shifts  of  ten  hours  per  day.  In  this  way  the  fixed 
charge  was  distributed  over  a  larger  tonnage  of  refuse  per  wagon. 
It  would  seem  advisable  for  long  hauls  to  give  the  motor  truck  a 
more  extended  trial.  The  saving  for  short  hauls  is  questionable. 

Where  horses  are  used,  it  is  obviously  better  that  they  should 
be  capable  of  hauling  a  maximum  load.  It  is  the  general  ex¬ 
perience  that  better  kept  horses,  capable  of  carrying  heavier  loads, 
are  found  in  cities  that  have%  their  own  stables.  Horses  rented  by 
the  day,  generally  from  individuals  oi  small  means,  are  apt  to  be 
worked  on  the  least  feed  possible.  Two  horses  weighing  1,500  to 
1,600  lb.  can  work  in  refuse  collection  service  with  a  load  of  about 
9,000  lb.  net. 

OPERATING  THE  WAGONS. 

Different  methods  of  operating  the  wagons  are  found  in 
different  cities.  The  so-called  “Roller-System”  is  used  in  this  coun¬ 
try  in  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  and  Springfield,  Mass.  Workmen  go  down 
each  side  of  the  street  about  an  hour  ahead  of  the  wagons.  They 
roll  the  cans  out  to  the  curb.  In  some  districts  these  men  have 
small  trucks  with  which  they  roll  the  cans  from  the  back  yard  to 
the  curb.  The  driver  empties  the  cans  into  the  wagon  and  disinfects 
them.  The  workmen  then  take  the  empty  cans  from  the  curb  to 
the  back  yard.  This  method  makes  the  most  use  of  the  more  ex- 


18 


pensive  part  of  the  equipment,  the  horse  and  wagon  costing  more 
than  the  laborer.  Therefore,  the  system  is  good  where  the  house 
can  is  inaccessibly  placed. 

The  common  system  abroad  is  for  the  householder  to  place 
the  can  on  the  curb  for  the  collector.  In  this  case,  one  or  two 
workmen  accompany  each  wagon,  one  of  them  acting  as  driver, 
while  the  other  empties  the  can,  which  is  generally  small,  from  the 
curb  into  the  wagon.  This  is  a  very  effective  method,  and,  to  the 
writer’s  knowledge,  the  most  economical  in  use.  Recently  bids  were 
asked  in  Plainfield,  N.  J.,  under  two  schedules :  “A”,  that  the 

householder  should  set  the  can  out  on  the  curb,  and  “B”  that  the 
collector  should  carry  the  can  out  from  the  basement.  The  low  bid 
varied  from  $12.00  per  house  per  year  under  schedule  “B”  to  $4.62 
per  house  per  year  under  schedule  ‘‘A”,  showing  that  the  contractor 
estimated  the  additional  cost  of  having  the  collector  go  into  the 
cellar  at  $7.38  per  house  per  year.  For  a  city  of  100,000  people, 
having  say  20,000  houses,  this  would  amount  to  $147,600  per  year. 

The  common  method  of  operating  the  wagons  in  this  coun¬ 
try  is  to  have  the  driver  make  the  collection  from  the  back  yard. 
This  is  uneconomical  from  many  points  of  view.  The  horse  and 
wagon  must  stand  idle  while  the  can  is  being  emptied  and  re¬ 
turned,  and  the  whole  collection  work  is  retarded  accordingly. 

In  Milwaukee,  as  in  many  other  cities,  the  collection  of  garbage 
is  planned  by  districts.  The  city  is  divided  into  small  districts,  so 
arranged  that  each  district,  when  visited  at  intervals  of  from  six 
to  eight  days,  yields  one  load  of  garbage.  Each  collector  is  as¬ 
signed  two  districts,  so  that  each  has  either  a  long  and  a  short 
haul,  or  two  medium  length  hauls;  the  object  being  to  equalize  the 
work. 

It  was  found  in  Milwaukee,  covering  about  25  square  miles, 
with  a  population  of  385,000,  that  95  collectors  with  1.5 
cu.  yd.  wagons  operating  in  about  200  districts,  were  necessary. 
This  system  has  the  advantage  of  familiarizing  the  collector  with 
certain  districts  in  the  city,  and  complaints  can  be  located  and  traced 
directly  to  the  collector  at  fault.  One  Superintendent  with  an 
office  at  the  city  incinerator,  has  charge  of  the  collection  work, 
the  weighmaster  serving  as  his  assistant.  If  it  had  been  possible 
to  secure  workmen  of  sufficient  intelligence  to  co-operate  with  the 
householders  in  their  districts,  this  system  would  have  been  satis¬ 
factory.  As  it  was,  however,  the  wagons  required  by  the  citv 
only  carried  1.5  yd.  of  garbage,  and  were  drawn  by  one 
horse.  This  enabled  workmen  of  small  means  and  often  of 
small  intelligence,  to  own  a  horse  and  wagon  and  to  secure  the 
city  work.  I  he  whole  city  was  too  large  a  unit  for  one  Super¬ 
intendent  to  handle,  and  the  collectors,  as  a  general  rule,  were  not 
,  able  to  give  to  the  service  anything  more  than  the  mechanical 
operation  of  their  equipment.  The  result  on  the  whole  was  unsatis- 


19 


factory.  The  complaints  averaged  from  five  to  fifty  a  day,  being 
more  in  summer  than  in  winter.  The  city  administration  recognized 
that  this  collection  system  was  not  entirely  satisfactory.  Its 
plans  for  improvement  were  along  two  lines. 

.(1)  New  wagons  with  a  capacity  of  4  yd.  were  purchased 
and  installed  for  a  part  of  the  city.  This  was  expected  to  reduce 
the  number  of  wagons  required  and  to  secure  more  intelligence 
on  the  part  of  the  collectors. 

(2)  The  Superintendent  was  to  have  two  assistants,  who 
should  devote  their  time  to  securing  co-operaton  between  the  col-- 
lectors  and  the  householders. 

Before  leaving  the  Milwaukee  description,  mention  should  be 
made  of  Bulletin  No.  12,  of  the  Milwaukee  Bureau  of  Economy  and 
Efficiency,  on  “Garbage  Collection"  by  Robert  E.  Goodell.  This 
bulletin  gives  some  very  satisfactory  data  resulting  from  a  field 
investigation  of  the  collector’s  work.  It  was  found  that  the  rate 
of  driving  was  between  3.04  and  4.48  miles  per  hour.  Table  IV 
above  shows  results  of  the  observations  on  the  time  spent  in  col¬ 
lecting  from  individual  places. 

In  Minneapolis,  is  found  a  system  of  garbage  collection  which, 
in  many  ways,  is  similar  to  that  which  would  have  resulted  in 
Milwaukee  had  the  suggested  improvements  been  carried  out.  The 
wagons  used  in  Minneapolis  have  a  capacity  of  100  cu.  ft.  This 
has  resulted  in  securing  for  the  work  a  higher  grade  of  collectors. 
The  city  ordinance  requires  that  all  garbage  shall  be  drained  of 
water  and  wrapped  in  paper  before  it  is  placed  in  the  can.  This 
has  been  very  successfully  enforced,  so  that  about  90%  or  more 
of  the  population  obey  the  ordinance.  This  would  not  have  been 
possible  if  the  collectors  had  not  secured  the  co-operation  of  the 
householders  in  their  districts.  The  districting  of  the  city  is  very 
much  the  same  as  it  is  in  Milwaukee.  There  is,  however,  one 
notable  exception.  In  Milwaukee,  ashes  and  rubbish  are  collected 
in  the  different  wards  under  the  ward  superintendent.  In  Minne¬ 
apolis,  ashes  and  rubbish  are  collected  by  districts  co-extensive  with 
the  garbage  collection  districts.  It  is  evident  that  it  is  better  to 
separate  political  districts  from  collection  districts,  and  the  results 
in  Minneapolis  bear  out  this  statement.  It  is  rarely  the  case  that 
political  districts  are  divided  to  meet  the  requirements  of  collection 
districts. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that,  in  Buffalo,  the  garbage  collec¬ 
tions  are  made  on  a  schedule  so  that  the  collector  arrives  at  each 
house  within  a  few  minutes  of  a  fixed  time  on  a  stated  day.  This 
makes  it  possible  for  the  housekeeper  to  know  when  the  collections 
are  going  to  be  made,  and  to  arrange  accordingly.  It  also  enables 
the  Superintendent  to  follow  more  carefully  from  house  to  house, 
the  work  of  the  collector.  In  Bremen,  Germany,  the  collector 
gives  notice  of  his  approach  to  the  house  by  ringing  a  bell.  The 


20 


housekeeper  is  then  supposed  to  set  the  can  out  in  front  for  the 
collector.  Where  no  can  is  set  out  the  collector  assumes  that  no 
collection  is  wanted.  This  has  a  tendency  to  automatically  regu¬ 
late  the  required  frequency  of  collection.  Such  a  system  would 
not  be  possible  in  a  crowded,  busy  district. 

The  city  of  Seattle,  Washington,  has  a  very  carefully  worked- 
out  system  for  collecting  mixed  refuse.  Five  refuse  incinerators, 
of  which  two  are  in  operation,  and  one  under  construction,  are 
located  in  various  districts  of  the  city  to  facilitate  the  collection 
service.  Wagons  having  an  average  capacity  of  1.6  tons,  or  about 
3.0  cu.  yds.,  are  used,  the  number  required  in  each  district  being 
shown  in  Table  V. 

TABLE  V. 


Collection 

Data,  Seattle 

,  Wash. 

Tons  per 

Men  tor 

Men  at 

District 

day 

Wagons 

collection 

barns 

1 

107 

24 

40 

4 

2 

35 

11 

20 

o 

3 

33 

10 

17 

9 

fJ 

4 

93 

22 

36 

3 

5 

29 

7 

12 

1 

Totals, 

296 

74 

125 

12 

Wagons  per  100,000  population — 31. 

The  average  cost  of  collection  per  ton  is  estimated  to  be  $2.40. 
The  teams  are  stated  to  travel  at  a  rate  of  2.75  miles  per  hour. 

The  city  of  Columbus,  Ohio,  also  has  a  very  carefully  planned 
system  of  collecting  garbage,  ashes,  rubbish,  and  manure.  The 
city  owns  its  own  stable  and  equipment.  The  average  number  of 
teams  employed  in  garbage  collection  from  January  to  July,  is  17 ; 
from  July  to  October,  22,  and  from  October  to  January,  17.  The 
city  is  laid  out  into  31  garbage  districts.  These  are  divided  among 
the  collectors  on  the  “long  and  short  haul'’  method,  so  that  no  team 
travels  more  than  sixteen  miles  per  day.  Each  team  collects  two 
loads  daily  except  that  those  collecting  from  hotels  make  three. 
The  loads  average  1.5  tons.  The  cost  of  operation  for  the  garbage 
collection  service  was  $1.88  per  ton  for  the  year  1911. 

For  the  collection  of  rubbish,  the  city  is  divided  into  eight 
districts,  each  being  in  charge  of  a  foreman,  who  has  under  him 
about  four  teams,  four  drivers,  and  one  helper.  Thirty-two  teams 
are  employed. 

It  is  worthy  of  special  comment  that  the  city  collects  the 
manure.  Any  person  desiring  this  city  service  must  take  out  a 
permit  which  costs  $3.00  per  year  for  one  horse,  $5.00  for  two 
horses,  and  $1.00  per  horse  for  all  over  two.  No  one  is  required 
to  take  out  a  permit  but  everyone  is  required  to  remove  the  manure 
once  in  every  ten  days.  If  they  fail,  the  city  removes  it  at  a  cost 
of  $2.00  per  load  to  the  stable  owner.  Six  wagons  are  employed 
hauling  manure. 


The  cost  of  collecting  rubbish  in  1911  was  68c  per  cu.  yd., 
and  of  collecting  manure,  after  deducting  receipts  from  permits 
and  the  sale  of  manure,  was  32c  per  yard.  The  manure  is  sold  for 
50c  per  ton  f.o.b.  city  tracks. 

The  Ohio  State  Board  of  Health  has  made  a  very  careful 
investigation  of  refuse  collection  and  disposal  in  that  state.  The 
following  is  taken  from  their  report: 

OHIO  CITIES. 

EQUIPMENT  AND  METHODS  OF  COLLECTING  CITY  REFUSE. 

(Garbage) 

“For  the  collection  of  garbage,  particularly  in  the  large 
cities  of  Ohio,  special  equipment  suitable  for  the  purpose  is 
provided.  Two  general  types  of  wagons  are  used.  In  Cleve¬ 
land,  Columbus,  Cincinnati,  Dayton,  Steubenville,  and  Zanes¬ 
ville,  covered  steel  tank  wagon  bodies  are  employed,  and  in 
the  other  cities  studied,  the  wagons  are  built  with  two  plat¬ 
forms  upon  which  the  cans  from  the  householders  are  placed 
directly.  The  Cleveland  and  Columbus  wagons  are  of  the 
same  type,  and  are  designed  for  dumping  their  contents  without 
removal  of  the  wagon  bodies.  At  Cincinnati  and  Dayton,  the 
wagon  bodies  are  removed  from  the  running  gear  and  sub¬ 
sequently  dumped  after  transportation  to  the  point  of  disposal. 
The  platform  wagons  used  in  connection  with  the  so-called 
can  system,  are  somewhat  less  economical  than  the  tank  wagons, 
but  are  entirely  suited  for  small  cities  where  the  quantities 
of  garbage  are  not  great. 

“In  the  smaller  cities  of  the  state,  the  material  is  trans¬ 
ported  directly  in  the  collection  wagons  to  the  disposal  plants, 
but  in  the  larger  cities,  where  the  question  of  length  of  haul 
becomes  of  great  importance,  there  have  been  established  load¬ 
ing  stations,  where  the  garbage  may  be  dumped  into  specially 
constructed  cars,  or  left  in  the  wagon  bodies  which  are  placed 
on  flat  cars  and  thus  transported  to  the  point  of  final  disposal. 
This  method  is  practiced  in  each  of  the  large  cities  in  Ohio. 

(Rubbish-Ashes) 

“Although  separate  collection  of  rubbish  and  ashes  is 
practised  in  certain  localities,  it  was  found  that  in  each  of 
the  Ohio  cities,  in  which  this  work  is  carried  on,  these  wastes 
are  collected  and  disposed  of  together.  In  only  three  of  the 
cities  of  the  state  are  there  organized  collection  systems  for 
this  class  of  material,  and  in  each  of  the  others,  private  scav¬ 
engers  are  depended  on.  Special  types  of  wagons  are  used 
at  Cincinnati  and  at  Cleveland,  while  at  Dayton,  a  modifica¬ 
tion  of  the  slat-board  type  of  wagon  is  employed.  Local 
conditions  are  met  at  Cincinnati  by  the  use  of  a  back  dump 
wagon  manufactured  by  the  city  street  cleaning  department, 


and  at  Cleveland  by  the  use  of  a  bottom  dump  wagon,  of 
standard  make.  The  type  of  wagon  is  not  of  vast  importance, 
but  it  seems  to  be  the  consensus  of  opinion  that  for  best 
economic  results,  the  wagon  should  have  a  capacity  of  from 
three  to  four  cubic  yards,  where  combined  collection  of  ashes 
and  rubbish  is  made.” 

TIME  OF  COLLECTION. 

The  question  of  night  as-  against  day  collection  is  a  difficult 
one  to  decide.  The  most  general  practice  in  German  cities  is 
to  make  collection  at  night.  There  is,  however,  a  sentiment  against 
this  practice  on  account  of  the  noise  of  collection  and  the  danger 
of  having  the  can  stolen  where  it  is  set  out  at  night  for  the  col¬ 
lector.  In  Milwaukee,  during  the  summer  of  1910,  there  was  such 
an  outcry  against  having  the  collection  wagons  on  the  streets 
during  the  daytime,  that  it  was  necessary  to  make  the  collections  in 
the  very  early  morning,  from  2  :00  a.  m.  to  8  :00  a.  m.  Thh  worked 
well  during  the  summer  months,  when  it  became  light  early.  Dur¬ 
ing  the  fall,  it  became  more  and  more  difficult  for  the  collectors  to 
work  rapidly  in  finding  the  cans  in  the  back  yards.  It  does  not 
seem  advisable  in  residential  districts  to  make  the  collection  at 
night.  In  downtown  districts,  however,  it  is  found  difficult  to  make 
collections  except  at  night,  because  of  the  crowded  condition  in  the 
streets.  Probably  for  such  districts,  early  morning  hours  are  most 
satisfactory.  Except  with  mixed  refuse,  I  do  not  know  of  any  case 
where  ashes  and  rubbish  are  collected  at  night.  The  Superintendent 
of  Collection  at  Essen,  Germany,  received  considerable  complaint 
from  the  dust  due  to  loading  mixed  refuse  into  the  wagons  during 
the  day  and  was  contemplating  either  night  collection,  or  a  new 
type  of  covered  wagon  on  this  account.  There  is  undoubtedly  dust 
nuisance  from  ashes  on  windy  days  passing  through  the  streets 
in  uncovered  wagons. 

SEPARATE  OR  MIXED  COLLECTION. 

Another  question  in  refuse  collection  difficult  to  answer,  is 
the  relative  merits  of  mixed  as  against  separate  collections.  Re¬ 
ferring  to  the  expressions  for  n^ffise  collection  as  given  above,  a 
computation  can  be  made  of  the  relative  cost  of  separate  and  mixed 
collection  under  similar  conditions  of  service.  Assuming  four- 
yard  wagons  with  collections  at  three-day  intervals,  the  same 
quantities  of  refuse,  and  the  average  time  of  collection  per  house 
at  three  minutes,  computation  based  on  the  equations  as  given 
above,  shows  that  for  separate  collection  the  total  number  of 
wagons  required  per  100,000  population  will  be  220;  for  mixed 
collections,  using  the  same  assumptions  and  quantities,  the  number 
of  wagons  required  is  76.  In  practice,  it  is  always  found  that  col¬ 
lections  at  three-day  intervals  are  not  necessary  for  ashes  and 
rubbish.  On  this  account,  the  theoretical  difference  between 


separate  and  mixed  collection  as  shown  above  is  not  evident  in 
practice. 

The  following  table  shows  the  number  of  wagons  and  the 
capacity  of  the  wagons  per  100,000  population  for  mixed  refuse 
collection  at  Seattle,  Wash.,  and  for  separate  collection  at  Columbus, 
Ohio : 

Columbus ,  Ohio. 

Population  (1910)  181,511. 

For  ash  collection  (22  wagons  of  3.0  cu.  yd.  capacity. 

For  rubbish  colk'ction  j  . . .  I  wagonjs  of  4.0  cu.  yd.  capacity. 
For  garbage  collection  . 11  wagons  of  2.5  cu.  yd.  capacity. 


Total  . 33  Average  3.2  cu.  yd. 

Seattle,  Washington. 

Population  (1910)  237,194. 

Total  . 31  wagons  of  3.0  cu.  yd.  capacity. 

Very  little  actual  data  relative  to  the  cost  of  collection  under 
these  two  systems  are  available.  Aside  from  the  cost  feature,  it 
may  be  said  that  mixed  collection  will  make  it  difficult  for  flies  to 
propagate  in  the  garbage,  will  tend  to  lessen  the  dust  nuisance  from 
ashes,  and  will  partly  prevent  the  flying  away  of  loose  paper  from 
the  rubbish.  On  the  whole,  mixed  refuse  is  a  cleaner  material  to 
handle,  and  excepting  as  the  separate  collection  may  be  cheaper, 
both  as  to  collection  and  disposal,  the  mixed  refuse  collection  is 
best. 

One  of  the  things  shown  by  this  discussion  is  the  extreme 
variation  of  the  cost  and  methods  of  refuse  collection.  There 
are  several  causes  for  this  difference.  Lx>cal  conditions,  as  to 
length  of  haul,  street  grades,  and  the  co-operation  of  the  house¬ 
holders,  have  an  important  effect,  and  also  the  efficiency  of  the 
department  handling  the  work.  It  is  also  true  that  the  methods 
of  keeping  records  and  accounts  in  the  department  have  an  im¬ 
portant  effect. 

V  here  only  scattering  loajj^of  refuse  are  weighed,  or  where' 
the  weights  are  computed  from^^gon  loads,  without  actual  weigh¬ 
ing,  the  tendency  is  to  increase  the  tonnage  and  to  reduce  the 
unit  of  cost  of  collection.  There  is  probably  no  branch  of  municipal 
work  in  which  accurate  data  are  of  more  value  than  in  refuse  col¬ 
lection.  It  would  seem  advisable  to  make  up  the  records  accurately, 
and  in  some  standard  form  so  that  they  would  be  of  value  for  com¬ 
parative  purposes.  The  writer  recently  presented  to  the  American 
Public  Flealth  Association  a  suggested  standard  form  of  statistics 
for  municipal  refuse.  The  adoption  of  some  such  method  for  keep¬ 
ing  records  would  lead  to  a  more  general  use  throughout  the  country 
of  those  methods  of  refuse  collection  which  experience  has  shown 
capable  of  producing  the  best  results. 


24 


